New libraries process

Simon Peyton-Jones simonpj at
Thu May 26 09:37:09 CEST 2011


Thanks to those who responded to the message below, about improving the process for developing the core Haskell libraries. 

Feedback has been broadly positive, with constructive suggestions that we've incorporated in the text.  I suggest that we leave another week for debate and refinement, and (unless there are some substantial new points) adopt the new process from 9 June.  

I hope that's agreeable. (We don't have a process for modifying the process :-)


| I think there is general agreement that
|  * The library submission process is too daunting, especially because you have to
|    come up with a complete implementation of a proposal before you even know
|    whether it's going to fly.
|  * The process gets stuck because achieving universal consensus is too difficult
|  * The maintainer "libraries at" means that no individual feels responsible
|    for making a decision on a proposal.
| What we need is something to put in its place.  Simon and I have been cooking up a
| proposal.  Here it is:
| It is aimed just at libraries whose maintainer is listed as libraries at
| (The thousands of other libraries with named maintainers can obviously do whatever
| their maintainer wants, although perhaps this new draft may be useful for them too.)
| It's a draft.  What do you think of it?  Do you think it would be better than the
| status quo?  Can you suggest any improvements?
| ALSO: does anyone (or two or three people) want to volunteer to act as maintainer for
| any of the "Volunteer needed" packages?  Johan, I was thinking you might serve for
| 'containers', perhaps in harness with someone else since it is such a crucial
| package.
| Simon
| _______________________________________________
| Cvs-ghc mailing list
| Cvs-ghc at

More information about the Haskell-prime mailing list